Re: [aur-general] license issues with google-earth in [community]?
Am Montag, 18. Februar 2008 12:14:27 schrieb Ronald van Haren:
Untagged it for both i686 and x86_64.
Bfinch can you move it back to unsupported ?
Don't get me wrong but please take this advice: If you add software to [community] please read the License if it is not a common one like GPL.
-- archlinux.de
Hey all; Well I have EXACTLY two emails in my in box over the past 48 hours since I adopted google-earth, and both of those in the last day. Apparently I am NOT subscribed to one of the email lists that this was discussed on, so alas, I could NOT respond or have any knowledge of any such discussions. I also do NOT have any private emails from anyone on this subject either over the past two days. I was specifically NOT ignoring anyone, including Ronald, but rather I had no idea of what was being discussed. AND this package was removed *altogether* but NOT by me, and certainly before I could have responded. <- That is perfectly fine with me. Under the circumstances I fully agree. I would *also* be happy to replace it in unsupported, as apparently it has been determined to NOT have it in any repo. Finally, while I *did* read the license, it was not until I read some of the scuttlebutt on the internet that I appreciated all of the issues folks seem to have with Google's licensing. The license is, in simple language, exceptionally poorly written and subject to an incredible range of legal interpretation. <- This ALONE is a good enough reason for me to agree that it does not belong in ANY repo associated with Arch. SO, *if* you guys want I can replace it into unsupported alongside the existing bin32 package that currently resides there. Please advise me accordingly. Thanks in advance for letting me know *if* this program is wanted in unsupported. Very best regards; Bob Finch P.S.... Will it be possible to retain or reinstate the 250-odd votes this package received ?; as it is now NOT extent in either unsupported OR the community repo, and it would be nice to be able to properly reflect the voting.
On Feb 18, 2008 6:37 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
AND this package was removed *altogether* but NOT by me, and certainly before I could have responded. <- That is perfectly fine with me. Under the circumstances I fully agree. I would *also* be happy to replace it in unsupported, as apparently it has been determined to NOT have it in any repo.
as I said, I untagged them, I did not remove them. They should still be in your cvs checkout.
On Feb 18, 2008 6:37 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
AND this package was removed *altogether* but NOT by me, and certainly before I could have responded. <- That is perfectly fine with me. Under the circumstances I fully agree. I would *also* be happy to replace it in unsupported, as apparently it has been determined to NOT have it in any repo.
as I said, I untagged them, I did not remove them. They should still be in your cvs checkout.
Hey again; Well, yes it *is* still in the cvs, BUT it is *not* available from my AUR account so it appears to be removed from manipulation from that context. (And I would NOT have thought to look at the CVS, as manipulation from there to the AUR is not clear to me. (More on that below.) SO...that brings up two problems (for me); 1 - How does one get this "restored" to the AUR (unsupported) as opposed to merely re-tagging it into the community repo ? I ask this because I am NOT sure how things are either done *OR* laid out. (As far as I can determine, from this location, things are not stored the same. More importantly since I cannot get to this package from the AUR web interface it is not clear to me how a restore other than starting over is to take place.) 2 - Will a procedure you provide me restore the 250 some odd votes this package received ? -Please feel free to take this private, if there is any "sensitive" information you will be needing to impart to me. TIA for some answers and Very best regards; Bob Finch Liviu Librescu - În veci pomenirea lui. (May his memory be eternal.)
On Feb 18, 2008 11:13 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 6:37 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
AND this package was removed *altogether* but NOT by me, and certainly before I could have responded. <- That is perfectly fine with me. Under the circumstances I fully agree. I would *also* be happy to replace it in unsupported, as apparently it has been determined to NOT have it in any repo.
as I said, I untagged them, I did not remove them. They should still be in your cvs checkout.
Hey again;
Well, yes it *is* still in the cvs, BUT it is *not* available from my AUR account so it appears to be removed from manipulation from that context. (And I would NOT have thought to look at the CVS, as manipulation from there to the AUR is not clear to me. (More on that below.)
SO...that brings up two problems (for me);
1 - How does one get this "restored" to the AUR (unsupported) as opposed to merely re-tagging it into the community repo ? I ask this because I am NOT sure how things are either done *OR* laid out. (As far as I can determine, from this location, things are not stored the same. More importantly since I cannot get to this package from the AUR web interface it is not clear to me how a restore other than starting over is to take place.)
2 - Will a procedure you provide me restore the 250 some odd votes this package received ?
-Please feel free to take this private, if there is any "sensitive" information you will be needing to impart to me.
TIA for some answers and
Very best regards;
Bob Finch
Liviu Librescu - În veci pomenirea lui. (May his memory be eternal.)
No sorry, AFAIK the votes are lost ones a package moves back from [community] to unsupported (maybe this would be a good feature addition for coming AUR releases, thinking of it). Let me explain. I untagged it because the license was questionable. Untagging it will keep the files on the server, so one can either re-tag it (using 'cvs tag') , or still get the files before putting it back in unsupported. That way not all hard work is lost. What you should do after logging in onto the cvs server, is first getting the PKGBUILD and other files required for you to upload it to unsupported again. After you have all files on your local harddrive, remove the package from cvs using from WITHIN THE PACKAGE DIRECTORY: cvs rm -fl cvs commit After this you can upload it to unsupported as one would normally do. For reference, see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines, especially the part on Deleting packages from [community]. If you have still any questions, feel free to contact me directly. Best, Ronald
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:28:32PM +0100, Ronald van Haren wrote:
No sorry, AFAIK the votes are lost ones a package moves back from [community] to unsupported (maybe this would be a good feature addition for coming AUR releases, thinking of it).
That feature happens to be a very tough cookie by the way, since the AUR really doesn't know anything about moving packages from community to unsupported, while it knows a whole lot about moving packages in the other direction. If anyone wants to take a crack at this, join the aur-dev list and start sending some patches :) -S
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:28:32PM +0100, Ronald van Haren wrote:
No sorry, AFAIK the votes are lost ones a package moves back from [community] to unsupported (maybe this would be a good feature addition for coming AUR releases, thinking of it).
That feature happens to be a very tough cookie by the way, since the AUR really doesn't know anything about moving packages from community to unsupported, while it knows a whole lot about moving packages in the other direction.
If anyone wants to take a crack at this, join the aur-dev list and start sending some patches :)
-S
Hey there ya all !!; Um, this is probably NOT worth the effort to code, as it is not likely to happen often. Or at least I cannot think of very many good reasons for it to happen often. YMMV of course. On the other hand, it might be very handy to be able to add votes for situations where an AUR entry gets destroyed, or mutilated, etc. in the normal course of things, or in the abnormal course of things. ****** ALso; I will take it that no one objects to restoring google-earth to the AUR ? Thanks again ya all and VERY best regards; Bob Finch Liviu Librescu - În veci pomenirea lui. (May his memory be eternal.)
On Feb 19, 2008 9:54 AM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
Um, this is probably NOT worth the effort to code, as it is not likely to happen often. Or at least I cannot think of very many good reasons for it to happen often. YMMV of course.
Exactly, in this case at least there's not much point in even some way to add 'fake votes' because packages taken out repos due to license issues are never going back in, right? That's what the voting is meant for in the first place. -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
Comments at the end.
On Feb 18, 2008 11:13 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 6:37 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
AND this package was removed *altogether* but NOT by me, and
certainly before I could have responded. <- That is perfectly fine with me. Under the circumstances I fully agree. I would *also* be happy to replace it in unsupported, as apparently it has been determined to NOT have it in any repo. as I said, I untagged them, I did not remove them. They should still be in your cvs checkout.
Hey again;
Well, yes it *is* still in the cvs, BUT it is *not* available from my AUR account so it appears to be removed from manipulation from that context. (And I would NOT have thought to look at the CVS, as manipulation from there to the AUR is not clear to me. (More on that below.)
SO...that brings up two problems (for me);
1 - How does one get this "restored" to the AUR (unsupported) as opposed to merely re-tagging it into the community repo ? I ask this because I am NOT sure how things are either done *OR* laid out. (As far as I can determine, from this location, things are not stored the same. More importantly since I cannot get to this package from the AUR web interface it is not clear to me how a restore other than starting over is to take place.)
2 - Will a procedure you provide me restore the 250 some odd votes this package received ?
-Please feel free to take this private, if there is any "sensitive" information you will be needing to impart to me.
TIA for some answers and
Very best regards;
Bob Finch
Liviu Librescu - În veci pomenirea lui. (May his memory be eternal.)
No sorry, AFAIK the votes are lost ones a package moves back from [community] to unsupported (maybe this would be a good feature addition for coming AUR releases, thinking of it).
Let me explain. I untagged it because the license was questionable. Untagging it will keep the files on the server, so one can either re-tag it (using 'cvs tag') , or still get the files before putting it back in unsupported. That way not all hard work is lost.
What you should do after logging in onto the cvs server, is first getting the PKGBUILD and other files required for you to upload it to unsupported again. After you have all files on your local harddrive, remove the package from cvs using from WITHIN THE PACKAGE DIRECTORY:
cvs rm -fl cvs commit
After this you can upload it to unsupported as one would normally do.
For reference, see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines, especially the part on Deleting packages from [community].
If you have still any questions, feel free to contact me directly.
Best, Ronald
Thanks Ronald for the explanation. AND O.K.... all of that cvs stuff is exactly what I (already) know about. One more wrinkle though; I have never submitted to the AUR as a non-TU !! My *guess* is that I do THAT from the web interface. If I have a problem with the AUR, I will be sure to ask for info on how to get stuff into the AUR section of the system. ON THE REMOVAL SPECIFICALLY; As I said above, the bruehaha on the internet surrounding this particular package's license is both interesting and enough to have even ME (now) agreeing that it most likely does not belong in binary repos. BUT my aggreement in this matter is *not* because of what the license prohibits, but that no one is really sure what it prohibits as it is poorly worded. Situations have cropped up that have the exact same legal team agreeing at first that a business CAN run this software, and then stating that it needs to be removed immediately. And there are other situations like GPL coding being distributed with this package BY GOOGLE themselves. It sure seems like this is basically an ill defined mess that google has managed to create. More to the point: Arch *does* have packages in the binary repos with licensing provisions of much the same limitations as those quoted in the discussions here in this thread about google-earth. And I am speaking about stuff that specifically does NOT allow copying across a network for distribution purposes and/or business use et al, single machine, no laptop mobile use and so forth. AND while these packages are not allowed in Debian for the same reasons as was mentioned in the latest emails herein concerning google-earth ArchLinux DOES have them RIGHT NOW in the binary repos. SO.... *IF* this was pulled because it has a "non-free" license, that should NOT have been such a reflexive action IMHO, again in as much as Arch has plenty of those kinds of packages already in the binary repos. But that is merely my opinion, and perhaps it isn't worth much. Very best regards; Bob Finch
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, w9ya@qrparci.net wrote:
More to the point: Arch *does* have packages in the binary repos with licensing provisions of much the same limitations as those quoted in the discussions here in this thread about google-earth. And I am speaking about stuff that specifically does NOT allow copying across a network for distribution purposes and/or business use et al, single machine, no laptop mobile use and so forth. AND while these packages are not allowed in Debian for the same reasons as was mentioned in the latest emails herein concerning google-earth ArchLinux DOES have them RIGHT NOW in the binary repos.
SO.... *IF* this was pulled because it has a "non-free" license, that should NOT have been such a reflexive action IMHO, again in as much as Arch has plenty of those kinds of packages already in the binary repos.
What packages are you referring to? Do you have a list? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, w9ya@qrparci.net wrote:
More to the point: Arch *does* have packages in the binary repos with licensing provisions of much the same limitations as those quoted in the discussions here in this thread about google-earth. And I am speaking about stuff that specifically does NOT allow copying across a network for distribution purposes and/or business use et al, single machine, no laptop mobile use and so forth. AND while these packages are not allowed in Debian for the same reasons as was mentioned in the latest emails herein concerning google-earth ArchLinux DOES have them RIGHT NOW in the binary repos.
SO.... *IF* this was pulled because it has a "non-free" license, that should NOT have been such a reflexive action IMHO, again in as much as Arch has plenty of those kinds of packages already in the binary repos.
What packages are you referring to? Do you have a list?
Thanks for writing; In fact I found one such package in the first 45 seconds I went to look for such things. I found a similar package with a little bit more work, but not much more than a minute or two and some piping. i.e. Finding them would not be any more difficult than it was for the fella that found google-earth in the community repo and brought it to the attention of this email list within mere hours of my placing into the repo. BUT any list I would have is certainly NOT going to be exhaustive or even indicative of ANYTHING. i.e. I am the WRONG person to ask. Perhaps asking the fellow that found google-earth for some of the other packages that also have similar to essentially the same restrictions on distribution, copying, usage and/or handling might be a great idea ! Perhaps it is also a good time to properly define what kinds of things would be on such a list ? At one time, many years ago this was defined for Arch. But, of course, there is a much different group of developers and so forth now. And many things were allowed many years ago that might well be no welcomed if google-earth's restrictions and it's subsequent removal are to be a form of milestone today. <- Again it is hardly my place to decide such things, so I would very much prefer not to be asked for any more opinion on this matter of what kinds of things are to be allowed or not. If it WAS my decision then once something concrete is decided as to what will be SPECIFICALLY allowed in the matter of non-free distribution, copy, or usage restrictions; someone could then go into the four binary repos and weed those things out. <- Which I am guess is what you are after when you ask me for a list of what I had found. Again, it is NOT my place to be involved in such decisions OR actions. Of course, and as I have mentioned before in this matter, these thoughts of what MIGHT be done are merely my opinions and I have absolutely no desire to lead in any way with these matters. Again, I would like to also thank both you and the group here for being so polite to date with this matter. I could well imagine other less attractive ways of handling this matter so I appreciate that this was handled with proper and kindly restraint of emotions. In fact, I appreciate it very much. Very best regards; Bob Finch
On Feb 18, 2008 10:21 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, w9ya@qrparci.net wrote:
More to the point: Arch *does* have packages in the binary repos with licensing provisions of much the same limitations as those quoted in the discussions here in this thread about google-earth. And I am speaking about stuff that specifically does NOT allow copying across a network for distribution purposes and/or business use et al, single machine, no laptop mobile use and so forth. AND while these packages are not allowed in Debian for the same reasons as was mentioned in the latest emails herein concerning google-earth ArchLinux DOES have them RIGHT NOW in the binary repos.
SO.... *IF* this was pulled because it has a "non-free" license, that should NOT have been such a reflexive action IMHO, again in as much as Arch has plenty of those kinds of packages already in the binary repos.
What packages are you referring to? Do you have a list?
Thanks for writing;
In fact I found one such package in the first 45 seconds I went to look for such things. I found a similar package with a little bit more work, but not much more than a minute or two and some piping. i.e. Finding them would not be any more difficult than it was for the fella that found google-earth in the community repo and brought it to the attention of this email list within mere hours of my placing into the repo.
BUT any list I would have is certainly NOT going to be exhaustive or even indicative of ANYTHING. i.e. I am the WRONG person to ask. Perhaps asking the fellow that found google-earth for some of the other packages that also have similar to essentially the same restrictions on distribution, copying, usage and/or handling might be a great idea !
Perhaps it is also a good time to properly define what kinds of things would be on such a list ? At one time, many years ago this was defined for Arch. But, of course, there is a much different group of developers and so forth now. And many things were allowed many years ago that might well be no welcomed if google-earth's restrictions and it's subsequent removal are to be a form of milestone today. <- Again it is hardly my place to decide such things, so I would very much prefer not to be asked for any more opinion on this matter of what kinds of things are to be allowed or not.
If it WAS my decision then once something concrete is decided as to what will be SPECIFICALLY allowed in the matter of non-free distribution, copy, or usage restrictions; someone could then go into the four binary repos and weed those things out. <- Which I am guess is what you are after when you ask me for a list of what I had found. Again, it is NOT my place to be involved in such decisions OR actions.
Of course, and as I have mentioned before in this matter, these thoughts of what MIGHT be done are merely my opinions and I have absolutely no desire to lead in any way with these matters.
Again, I would like to also thank both you and the group here for being so polite to date with this matter. I could well imagine other less attractive ways of handling this matter so I appreciate that this was handled with proper and kindly restraint of emotions. In fact, I appreciate it very much.
tl;dr Eric, he is right in the sense that we have *some* non-free packages, but our list is really small: acroread has odd redistribution rules the msfonts are iffy, last I checked, but that may have changed the codecs package is still in the repos Hmmm... we got rid of ion3 and the only binary-only packages we have left are video drivers.... I'm at a loss pulling from memory
On Feb 18, 2008 4:13 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
1 - How does one get this "restored" to the AUR (unsupported) as opposed to merely re-tagging it into the community repo ? I ask this because I am NOT sure how things are either done *OR* laid out. (As far as I can determine, from this location, things are not stored the same. More importantly since I cannot get to this package from the AUR web interface it is not clear to me how a restore other than starting over is to take place.)
Community and the AUR are two separate entities, which happen to work together. One would assume it's fairly trivial to checkout a directory from CVS, and create a tarball from it to upload to the AUR exactly as one would submit a package normally. It is impossible to "restore" it because it was completely removed from the AUR when you moved it to the community repo.
2 - Will a procedure you provide me restore the 250 some odd votes this package received ?
Not possible. As I said, the votes were lost when the package was removed from the AUR by the simple fact of it moving to community.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:43:44PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 4:13 PM, <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
1 - How does one get this "restored" to the AUR (unsupported) as opposed to merely re-tagging it into the community repo ? I ask this because I am NOT sure how things are either done *OR* laid out. (As far as I can determine, from this location, things are not stored the same. More importantly since I cannot get to this package from the AUR web interface it is not clear to me how a restore other than starting over is to take place.)
Community and the AUR are two separate entities, which happen to work together. One would assume it's fairly trivial to checkout a directory from CVS, and create a tarball from it to upload to the AUR exactly as one would submit a package normally. It is impossible to "restore" it because it was completely removed from the AUR when you moved it to the community repo.
2 - Will a procedure you provide me restore the 250 some odd votes this package received ?
Not possible. As I said, the votes were lost when the package was removed from the AUR by the simple fact of it moving to community.
Actually, the AUR is relatively good at moving packages from unsupported to community. If a new package appears in CVS, it checks to see if it was already in unsupported, if it was, it preserves data such as package ID, and number of Votes, while clearing fields like the maintainer, and updating the repo location to communty. [1] However, the other direction, that is community to unsupported, currently destroys package data in the database. -S [1] http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=aur.git;a=blob;f=tupkg/update/tupkgupda...
participants (6)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Callan Barrett
-
Eric Belanger
-
Ronald van Haren
-
Simo Leone
-
w9ya＠qrparci.net